Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 14, 2016 10:21:09 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 14/4/16
MAORI WARDS
Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell, at the urging of the New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd, will present a petition to legislate for the creation of Maori wards on every district council.
A referendum was held and more than 80 per cent of New Plymouth ratepayers voted against Mr Judd’s proposal to establish a Maori ward on the New Plymouth District Council. Now he is lobbying central Government.
The establishment of a Maori ward would be separatist and will not “better reflect the make-up of the community”, as Mr Flavell is quoted as saying.
P V P
Hillcrest.
Bay of Plenty Times 14/4/16
MAORI SEATS
I am Maori. I am totally in opposition of “special Maori seats” on councils (News, April 12), even in government for that matter. What makes some Maori feel they need to create special seats to ensure they get elected, or to ensure they get a seat.
Front up with the rest of the candidates and win that seat like everyone else. Not all Maori vote for Maori candidates. Some of us actually vote for the best candidate, be it Maori or whatever background that person has.
Both my sons aged 19 and 20, have always been encouraged to be proud to be Maori, but never to use being Maori to get any “special treatment”.
N E
Papamoa
Dominion Post 14/4/16
WATER OWNERSHIP
The Government is calling for submissions regarding water control. I see it as being who "owns" the water, not just control.
Water, like oxygen, is a commodity of nature, ungoverned by any earthly being. It has no ownership or control, especially by racially discriminatory sections of the community.
This madness regarding ownership of our national resources further splits our racial makeup and further drives a wedge between many great cultures. This is being driven by greed and avarice and not cultural sensitivity.
Would any beneficiary from a sale of water royalties be liable for drownings or flood damage or would this be too much to expect?
While I appreciate being able to make a submission, I feel it carries no weight whatsoever. I have seen so many political decisions made by panels stacked with those for the argument and the vast population are too lazy or lacking the know-how to have their say.
I am at my later part of life, but fear for my children and their families. I just wish that governments, now and in the future, would look at the bigger picture.
R P
Island Bay
Wairarapa Times-Age 14/4/16
MISINFORMATION
I was astonished when I read the blatant misinformation in Alwyn Owen’s letter re. Parihaka (April 9).
He wrote “there are numerous accounts of the cleanliness of the settlement, of the cheerfulness and good health of its inhabitants”, and yet the Auckland Star published on September 22, 1875, “In this ‘republic of peace’ more than a thousand Maori were huddled together in most unhygienic conditions. In Parihaka there are nearly two hundred cases (of measles) and there have been about twelve deaths.”
And the Taranaki Herald reported on September 12, 1881, “Parihaka was infected by vermin and was absolutely filthy through lack of sanitary precautions.”
These Parihaka people were not the law-abiding citizens Owen paints them to be: “Yesterday a party of twelve Maori, when returning from Parihaka, entered Loveridge’s store at Oakura, commenced pulling things about, and were very bounceable. The Constabulary had to be called in to eject them,” wrote the Auckland Star on June 24, 1879.
Te Whiti and his followers had for 14 years been squatting on land confiscated in accordance with the rules of the time.
Over this period, these peaceful pillars of society stole horses from settlers’ farms, pulled down a newly built stockyard at Ngakumikumi and ploughed up settlers’ land.
“Such incidences indicate the belligerent nature behind the facade of passive resistance that settlers had to long endure,” wrote Dr Kerry Bolton in his recent work The Parihaka Cult.
Behind the line of singing children a stockpile of around 250 weapons, including breechloaders, Enfields, revolvers and a variety of ammunition was discovered, so one would have to agree with Owen’s statements that “Maori were considered a warlike race”.
Bryce was wise not to take the situation lightly.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Kapiti News April 13 2016
CRY FOR JUSTICE
Karen Butterworth’s cry for justice (April 6 letter) for poor Maori added weight to the very sad article published on page 4 of the same edition regarding the apparent despicable way in which Pakeha treated the Tuhoe people of the Te Urawera ranges.
Karen then promotes a number books including Claudia Orange’s The Treaty of Waitangi to back up her claims, inferring that she and these history revisionists know more about the Treaty of Waitangi than I.
Allow me to promote myself, I have studied the treaty for many years, in 2013 I lodged my own Treaty claim with the Waitangi Tribunal and I am an author of a book about my claim and the despicable way in which our history is being altered, called Cannons Creek to Waitangi. My book sits back to back in many book stores and libraries with Dame Claudia Orange’s warped view of reality.
This so called authority on the Treaty did not feel it necessary to mention in her updated books that the English draft of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, written by James Busby and signed by William Hobson was discovered in 1989 and sits in Archives New Zealand. What sort of great authority on the Treaty fails to mention the most significant discovery of modern times which reveals the truth about the Treaty?
She has remained silent on this discovery because it is now evident that Maori people were not even mentioned in the Treaty, let alone given any separate rights. We get even more silence regarding the fraudulent use of the James Freemen English version of the Treaty by our government when they have the actual draft in their possession.
This criminal disregard for facts by so called authorities is also evident in the Tuhoe article on page 4 as it fails to mention Tuhoe took up arms against New Zealand and fought against the combined Maori and colonial forces, killing many of them in battles such as the one at Orakau in 1864. Tuhoe also supported Te Kooti’s attack on Mohaka in April 1869 killing about 60 Maori and 7 settlers.
Taking up arms against your own county is an act of treason.
Despite this and many other discretions Tuhoe were given $60 million in 2008 and a further $170 million in 2013 in Treaty Settlements. You guessed it, like locals Ngati Raukawa who are in the process of dreaming up yet more treaty claims, Tuhoe never signed the Treaty either.
In this country there is nothing more lucrative than acts of treason and I adjudge that suing your fellow innocent citizens using fictitious stories just as treasonous.
ANDY OAKLEY
Raumati beach
Taranaki Daily News 14/4/16
DEFINING OUR TREASURES
On the business page (Taranaki Daily News, Tuesday, April 12) you featured the Governor General with a New Zealand falcon which was described as "a taonga - a treasure". The bird, like all living things, certainly is a treasure. But a taonga?
On the front page there was an article about taonga being returned to Puke Ariki from a private collection. Now these were, unquestionably, taonga.
The early definition of the word meaning personal property made these tools and weapons taonga to the original owners. I am not sure whether in those days personal property (which would have, pre-Treaty, presumably, included slaves) belonged to the individual or to the whole hapu/iwi. Or possibly to the chiefs.
This was, then, the property guaranteed to the people of New Zealand (Nu Tirani) by the British - except that by accepting the sovereignty of the Queen and the rule of British law there would no longer be slave ownership.
Anyway, while these taonga are clearly so, I am not sure how a free flying bird, whose ancestors have been here for a very long time, could possibly be the personal property of any one or more humans.
And in the same line of thought you can see how, at the time the Treaty was signed, any reference to the word, taonga, meant just personal property as opposed to birds, lizards and, certainly, not to anything which did not exist at that time. Any comments or corrections would be most welcome.
E S
Inglewood
The Wellingtonian 14/4/16
HONE HEKE AND THE UNION FLAG
Re Rose Hudson's letter (April 24), she is right in saying the flag referendum was unnecessary. However, I suspect the good lady has undergone some politically correct brainwashing about Hone Heke, the Union Flag, and his axing the Russell flagstaff in the mid 1840s.
As this was after the Treaty had confirmed British sovereignty over New Zealand, it was perfectly proper to fly Britain's flag, and no other, either with, or instead of that same Union Flag.
It seems Heke just wanted to go back on the chiefs' acceptance of British sovereignty. I am unsure as to whether he really imagined he could end British rule by removing its symbol, the flag of the United Kingdom. If he indeed thought so, he wasn't very bright! I seem to recall that he cut down the flagstaff three times, not four. After the third time, the authorities built a blockhouse, with armed sentries, near the flagstaff to prevent any further insults to the British flag. There had been nobody able to stop Heke's axings before it was
guarded. Seemingly this "hero", once he was aware of those armed sentries, attempted no more attacks on the flag-he wasn't going to risk being shot dead, was he?
Our country has never been a "condominium" with divided rule: the Treaty said not one word about any "partnership" between the Maori people and the Crown. To fly a Maori flag alongside our existing one would be to recognise a non-existent condominium and drive a wedge between our Maori citizens and all the others.
H W
Miramar
Northland Age 14/4/16
NO SUCH PLACE AOTEAROA?
No such place. Because there was no pre-European Maori nation state, Maori had no name for what is now New Zealand as a whole. It was left to European explorers to remedy this deficiency. The first to do so was Abel Tasman, who in 1642 named our country Staten Landt, in the mistaken belief it was part of a Great Southern Continent. Tasman's error was soon corrected. The following year, 1643, the Dutch Legislature renamed his discovery Nieuw Zeelandt, Anglicised to"New Zealand." This has been our country's name for the 373 years that have since elapsed.
The agenda of those promoting Aotearoa as an alternative name for New Zealand is to imply that a pre-existing Maori nation state was rudely subsumed by 19th Century white settler governments, and must accordingly be reinstated as 'co-equal' to our existing government, that governs for all New Zealanders. But the Treaty of Waitangi was not with a collective 'Maori.' It was with tribes, most of whom signed it, some of whom didn't. New Zealand in 1840 consisted of hundreds of these dispersed and petty tribes, each in a constant state of war with one another and lacking any concept of nationhood. Some 512 chiefs signed the Treaty, while a substantial minority refused to, meaning there were probably more than 600 of these individually insignificant groups.
Assertions that a Maori nation state existed when the Treaty was signed rest upon formal recognition by England's King William IV in 1836 of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the so-called Confederation of United Tribes and associated flag. Any 'official' recognition of pre-Treaty collective Maori control of New Zealand must be placed in its proper historical context, which ethnic nationalists conveniently omit to do. The so-called Maori flag (not the Tino rangatiratanga flag, fudged up in the 1990s) was adopted by Northland chiefs in 1834 at the behest of British Resident James Busby, after a New Zealand-built ship owned by Europeans was impounded in Sydney for not flying the flag of a recognised nation state. Busby presented the chiefs with a variety of designs. They eventually chose a flag modelled on that of the Church Missionary Society, with which they were well familiar. This was not a Maori initiative, but a Pakeha-brokered expedient to protect New Zealand's pre-Treaty commerce. Nor was the 1835 Declaration of Independence driven by the puny number of Maori chiefs who signed it. This"paper pellet to fire at the French" was fudged together by Busby to head off Colonial Office fears of an impending take-over by French adventurer Baron De Thierry.
InitiaIIy carrying the signatures (or rather the thumbprints) of 35 Northland chiefs, the Declaration was ultimately signed by just 57 chiefs, all residing north of the Firth of Thames. These chiefs represented less than 10 percent of all the tribes of New Zealand, so the Declaration can hardly be held up as evidence of a national consensus.
The arguments of Maori sovereignty activists are further undermined by the impotence of the handful of chiefs who signed the Declaration to act or even deliberate in concert. Signatories had pledged "to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade." Inter-tribal animosities meant this body never met nor passed a single law, despite the common undertaking to do so.
The North and South islands had a variety of Maori names in 1840, the most popular being Te Ika-a-Maui and Te Waipounamu respectively. There was, however, no pre-existing Maori name for what is now New Zealand, because as we have seen, there was no Maori nation state or national consensus to form one. Had there been a Maori name for New Zealand, the missionaries who drafted both the 1835 Declaration and the Maori Treaty text of 1840 (fluent Maori speakers all) would have known of and used it. Instead, they used the same transliteration of New Zealand (Niu 'Tirani) in both documents to get their point across.
Maori sovereignty activists, who regard the Treaty of Waitangi as written in concrete if it advances their agenda, have smuggled Niu Tirani out of the public square, because its use in the Maori Treaty text underscores the total bankruptcy of their claim to nationhood. Aotearoa has been smuggled in as a substitute.
Aotearoa was originally an alternative pre-European Maori name for the North Island. In the late 19th Century European authors William Pember Reeves and Stephenson Percy Smith began using it in Maori-themed works of fiction as a fanciful name for the entire country. That's all it ever was. As Muriel Newman notes in a recent article on the New Zealand Geographic Board's proposed name changes to the North and South Islands, "The board ruled out Aotearoa for the North Island on the basis that it has been popularised as the name for New Zealand." "Fabricated" is a far better word.
The race-hustlers pushing alternative Maori place names intend to insinuate into the public mind, through as many channels as possible, their' One country, two peoples" mantra. Constant repetition then creates the false impression of widespread popular acceptance of what is really nothing more than a propaganda claim.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Auckland
MAORI WARDS
Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell, at the urging of the New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd, will present a petition to legislate for the creation of Maori wards on every district council.
A referendum was held and more than 80 per cent of New Plymouth ratepayers voted against Mr Judd’s proposal to establish a Maori ward on the New Plymouth District Council. Now he is lobbying central Government.
The establishment of a Maori ward would be separatist and will not “better reflect the make-up of the community”, as Mr Flavell is quoted as saying.
P V P
Hillcrest.
Bay of Plenty Times 14/4/16
MAORI SEATS
I am Maori. I am totally in opposition of “special Maori seats” on councils (News, April 12), even in government for that matter. What makes some Maori feel they need to create special seats to ensure they get elected, or to ensure they get a seat.
Front up with the rest of the candidates and win that seat like everyone else. Not all Maori vote for Maori candidates. Some of us actually vote for the best candidate, be it Maori or whatever background that person has.
Both my sons aged 19 and 20, have always been encouraged to be proud to be Maori, but never to use being Maori to get any “special treatment”.
N E
Papamoa
Dominion Post 14/4/16
WATER OWNERSHIP
The Government is calling for submissions regarding water control. I see it as being who "owns" the water, not just control.
Water, like oxygen, is a commodity of nature, ungoverned by any earthly being. It has no ownership or control, especially by racially discriminatory sections of the community.
This madness regarding ownership of our national resources further splits our racial makeup and further drives a wedge between many great cultures. This is being driven by greed and avarice and not cultural sensitivity.
Would any beneficiary from a sale of water royalties be liable for drownings or flood damage or would this be too much to expect?
While I appreciate being able to make a submission, I feel it carries no weight whatsoever. I have seen so many political decisions made by panels stacked with those for the argument and the vast population are too lazy or lacking the know-how to have their say.
I am at my later part of life, but fear for my children and their families. I just wish that governments, now and in the future, would look at the bigger picture.
R P
Island Bay
Wairarapa Times-Age 14/4/16
MISINFORMATION
I was astonished when I read the blatant misinformation in Alwyn Owen’s letter re. Parihaka (April 9).
He wrote “there are numerous accounts of the cleanliness of the settlement, of the cheerfulness and good health of its inhabitants”, and yet the Auckland Star published on September 22, 1875, “In this ‘republic of peace’ more than a thousand Maori were huddled together in most unhygienic conditions. In Parihaka there are nearly two hundred cases (of measles) and there have been about twelve deaths.”
And the Taranaki Herald reported on September 12, 1881, “Parihaka was infected by vermin and was absolutely filthy through lack of sanitary precautions.”
These Parihaka people were not the law-abiding citizens Owen paints them to be: “Yesterday a party of twelve Maori, when returning from Parihaka, entered Loveridge’s store at Oakura, commenced pulling things about, and were very bounceable. The Constabulary had to be called in to eject them,” wrote the Auckland Star on June 24, 1879.
Te Whiti and his followers had for 14 years been squatting on land confiscated in accordance with the rules of the time.
Over this period, these peaceful pillars of society stole horses from settlers’ farms, pulled down a newly built stockyard at Ngakumikumi and ploughed up settlers’ land.
“Such incidences indicate the belligerent nature behind the facade of passive resistance that settlers had to long endure,” wrote Dr Kerry Bolton in his recent work The Parihaka Cult.
Behind the line of singing children a stockpile of around 250 weapons, including breechloaders, Enfields, revolvers and a variety of ammunition was discovered, so one would have to agree with Owen’s statements that “Maori were considered a warlike race”.
Bryce was wise not to take the situation lightly.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Kapiti News April 13 2016
CRY FOR JUSTICE
Karen Butterworth’s cry for justice (April 6 letter) for poor Maori added weight to the very sad article published on page 4 of the same edition regarding the apparent despicable way in which Pakeha treated the Tuhoe people of the Te Urawera ranges.
Karen then promotes a number books including Claudia Orange’s The Treaty of Waitangi to back up her claims, inferring that she and these history revisionists know more about the Treaty of Waitangi than I.
Allow me to promote myself, I have studied the treaty for many years, in 2013 I lodged my own Treaty claim with the Waitangi Tribunal and I am an author of a book about my claim and the despicable way in which our history is being altered, called Cannons Creek to Waitangi. My book sits back to back in many book stores and libraries with Dame Claudia Orange’s warped view of reality.
This so called authority on the Treaty did not feel it necessary to mention in her updated books that the English draft of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, written by James Busby and signed by William Hobson was discovered in 1989 and sits in Archives New Zealand. What sort of great authority on the Treaty fails to mention the most significant discovery of modern times which reveals the truth about the Treaty?
She has remained silent on this discovery because it is now evident that Maori people were not even mentioned in the Treaty, let alone given any separate rights. We get even more silence regarding the fraudulent use of the James Freemen English version of the Treaty by our government when they have the actual draft in their possession.
This criminal disregard for facts by so called authorities is also evident in the Tuhoe article on page 4 as it fails to mention Tuhoe took up arms against New Zealand and fought against the combined Maori and colonial forces, killing many of them in battles such as the one at Orakau in 1864. Tuhoe also supported Te Kooti’s attack on Mohaka in April 1869 killing about 60 Maori and 7 settlers.
Taking up arms against your own county is an act of treason.
Despite this and many other discretions Tuhoe were given $60 million in 2008 and a further $170 million in 2013 in Treaty Settlements. You guessed it, like locals Ngati Raukawa who are in the process of dreaming up yet more treaty claims, Tuhoe never signed the Treaty either.
In this country there is nothing more lucrative than acts of treason and I adjudge that suing your fellow innocent citizens using fictitious stories just as treasonous.
ANDY OAKLEY
Raumati beach
Taranaki Daily News 14/4/16
DEFINING OUR TREASURES
On the business page (Taranaki Daily News, Tuesday, April 12) you featured the Governor General with a New Zealand falcon which was described as "a taonga - a treasure". The bird, like all living things, certainly is a treasure. But a taonga?
On the front page there was an article about taonga being returned to Puke Ariki from a private collection. Now these were, unquestionably, taonga.
The early definition of the word meaning personal property made these tools and weapons taonga to the original owners. I am not sure whether in those days personal property (which would have, pre-Treaty, presumably, included slaves) belonged to the individual or to the whole hapu/iwi. Or possibly to the chiefs.
This was, then, the property guaranteed to the people of New Zealand (Nu Tirani) by the British - except that by accepting the sovereignty of the Queen and the rule of British law there would no longer be slave ownership.
Anyway, while these taonga are clearly so, I am not sure how a free flying bird, whose ancestors have been here for a very long time, could possibly be the personal property of any one or more humans.
And in the same line of thought you can see how, at the time the Treaty was signed, any reference to the word, taonga, meant just personal property as opposed to birds, lizards and, certainly, not to anything which did not exist at that time. Any comments or corrections would be most welcome.
E S
Inglewood
The Wellingtonian 14/4/16
HONE HEKE AND THE UNION FLAG
Re Rose Hudson's letter (April 24), she is right in saying the flag referendum was unnecessary. However, I suspect the good lady has undergone some politically correct brainwashing about Hone Heke, the Union Flag, and his axing the Russell flagstaff in the mid 1840s.
As this was after the Treaty had confirmed British sovereignty over New Zealand, it was perfectly proper to fly Britain's flag, and no other, either with, or instead of that same Union Flag.
It seems Heke just wanted to go back on the chiefs' acceptance of British sovereignty. I am unsure as to whether he really imagined he could end British rule by removing its symbol, the flag of the United Kingdom. If he indeed thought so, he wasn't very bright! I seem to recall that he cut down the flagstaff three times, not four. After the third time, the authorities built a blockhouse, with armed sentries, near the flagstaff to prevent any further insults to the British flag. There had been nobody able to stop Heke's axings before it was
guarded. Seemingly this "hero", once he was aware of those armed sentries, attempted no more attacks on the flag-he wasn't going to risk being shot dead, was he?
Our country has never been a "condominium" with divided rule: the Treaty said not one word about any "partnership" between the Maori people and the Crown. To fly a Maori flag alongside our existing one would be to recognise a non-existent condominium and drive a wedge between our Maori citizens and all the others.
H W
Miramar
Northland Age 14/4/16
NO SUCH PLACE AOTEAROA?
No such place. Because there was no pre-European Maori nation state, Maori had no name for what is now New Zealand as a whole. It was left to European explorers to remedy this deficiency. The first to do so was Abel Tasman, who in 1642 named our country Staten Landt, in the mistaken belief it was part of a Great Southern Continent. Tasman's error was soon corrected. The following year, 1643, the Dutch Legislature renamed his discovery Nieuw Zeelandt, Anglicised to"New Zealand." This has been our country's name for the 373 years that have since elapsed.
The agenda of those promoting Aotearoa as an alternative name for New Zealand is to imply that a pre-existing Maori nation state was rudely subsumed by 19th Century white settler governments, and must accordingly be reinstated as 'co-equal' to our existing government, that governs for all New Zealanders. But the Treaty of Waitangi was not with a collective 'Maori.' It was with tribes, most of whom signed it, some of whom didn't. New Zealand in 1840 consisted of hundreds of these dispersed and petty tribes, each in a constant state of war with one another and lacking any concept of nationhood. Some 512 chiefs signed the Treaty, while a substantial minority refused to, meaning there were probably more than 600 of these individually insignificant groups.
Assertions that a Maori nation state existed when the Treaty was signed rest upon formal recognition by England's King William IV in 1836 of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the so-called Confederation of United Tribes and associated flag. Any 'official' recognition of pre-Treaty collective Maori control of New Zealand must be placed in its proper historical context, which ethnic nationalists conveniently omit to do. The so-called Maori flag (not the Tino rangatiratanga flag, fudged up in the 1990s) was adopted by Northland chiefs in 1834 at the behest of British Resident James Busby, after a New Zealand-built ship owned by Europeans was impounded in Sydney for not flying the flag of a recognised nation state. Busby presented the chiefs with a variety of designs. They eventually chose a flag modelled on that of the Church Missionary Society, with which they were well familiar. This was not a Maori initiative, but a Pakeha-brokered expedient to protect New Zealand's pre-Treaty commerce. Nor was the 1835 Declaration of Independence driven by the puny number of Maori chiefs who signed it. This"paper pellet to fire at the French" was fudged together by Busby to head off Colonial Office fears of an impending take-over by French adventurer Baron De Thierry.
InitiaIIy carrying the signatures (or rather the thumbprints) of 35 Northland chiefs, the Declaration was ultimately signed by just 57 chiefs, all residing north of the Firth of Thames. These chiefs represented less than 10 percent of all the tribes of New Zealand, so the Declaration can hardly be held up as evidence of a national consensus.
The arguments of Maori sovereignty activists are further undermined by the impotence of the handful of chiefs who signed the Declaration to act or even deliberate in concert. Signatories had pledged "to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade." Inter-tribal animosities meant this body never met nor passed a single law, despite the common undertaking to do so.
The North and South islands had a variety of Maori names in 1840, the most popular being Te Ika-a-Maui and Te Waipounamu respectively. There was, however, no pre-existing Maori name for what is now New Zealand, because as we have seen, there was no Maori nation state or national consensus to form one. Had there been a Maori name for New Zealand, the missionaries who drafted both the 1835 Declaration and the Maori Treaty text of 1840 (fluent Maori speakers all) would have known of and used it. Instead, they used the same transliteration of New Zealand (Niu 'Tirani) in both documents to get their point across.
Maori sovereignty activists, who regard the Treaty of Waitangi as written in concrete if it advances their agenda, have smuggled Niu Tirani out of the public square, because its use in the Maori Treaty text underscores the total bankruptcy of their claim to nationhood. Aotearoa has been smuggled in as a substitute.
Aotearoa was originally an alternative pre-European Maori name for the North Island. In the late 19th Century European authors William Pember Reeves and Stephenson Percy Smith began using it in Maori-themed works of fiction as a fanciful name for the entire country. That's all it ever was. As Muriel Newman notes in a recent article on the New Zealand Geographic Board's proposed name changes to the North and South Islands, "The board ruled out Aotearoa for the North Island on the basis that it has been popularised as the name for New Zealand." "Fabricated" is a far better word.
The race-hustlers pushing alternative Maori place names intend to insinuate into the public mind, through as many channels as possible, their' One country, two peoples" mantra. Constant repetition then creates the false impression of widespread popular acceptance of what is really nothing more than a propaganda claim.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Auckland